This comment is for Paul This lengthy discussion is valuable and interesting but I have little to contribute except for one observation.

The effectiveness of Sidereal or precession-corrected Solar Returns and various derived daily (in between) charts, based on angular contacts by natal, solar, transiting planets cannot be understated. It just all works, and it works very well. The timing is what it is all about.

As for the zodiac's basis, Tropical or Sidereal, and the rational for sign usage and sign placement, I am as confused as you are. Accordingly, I gave up the use of signs and concentrate only on planets, angles, houses, aspects. After 43 years of practice and study, I don't miss them.

Simplicity of charting, without signs, rulerships, etc., has brought clarity. I would rather work with a few tools that I can trust will not fail me or mislead those I read for then to exercise many tools and end up with astro-babble. Just my view. However, I do wish these complex issues could be resolved. Dave_________________If you have options, exercise them all.

Having read a bit of the western siderealist viewpoint, I’d have to say their arguments have actually led me towards the tropical worldview.

There is abundant evidence that the “spirit” of many of the zodiac signs - that which imbues them with meaning - is based on seasonal effects associated with the sign in question. This seems a very tough point to prove wrong.

Then, I have heard western sidereal practitioners noting the “immutability” or “constancy” of the zodiac, under which the points of the equinoxes and solstices slowly turn.

But this narrative is challenged if one finds evidence that the signs themselves are not so immutable, especially if it is plausible that the signs have actually changed through the eons in keeping with the shifts of precession. Gavin White has written about this, as have others. This “updating” has been described in terms of changing the lore of certain signs, as well as the wholesale remaking of constellations.

At this point, what comes to my mind is a siderealist idea that I have heard articulated that no one has really been “watching” the stars from Ptolemy’s time until recently. The argument here is that this lack of attention to the skies has glued most (i.e. tropical) western astrologers to signs that are out of phase with their constellations and thus incorrect. But to me it seems that this contentious point of whether or not precession was truly forgotten may be secondary. One primary process that has not happened since Ptolemy’s time is the continuation of the previous evolution of the lore of the signs. If such updating, as mentioned above, did indeed occur for thousands of years, but stopped during Europe’s dark ages and after, it would indeed be appropriate to hold to the Ptolemaic-era locations of the zodiac signs, since the meanings of the constellations have not been updated as they should have been.

I’ve thus found that one common western siderealist narrative has led me more to the tropical viewpoint. But it also points to a way of harmony. If western siderealist signs do indeed hold some evolved or updated meaning, then the technical difference between the two systems might be compensated for by the symbolic difference. In other words, the two views would take two different paths to the same conclusions. I am glad this thread opened because I have had this question for a while.

The discussion of the interpretive value of Tropical and Sidereal signs needs to be the second part of a two part discussion. The first part of the discussion, in my opinion, needs to start with another topic, the topic of TIMING.

Precession-corrected Tropical usage or Sidereal usage in chats for periods of time separated from the natal chart's time period --- such as in Solar Returns, Lunar Returns and other forms of cyclic charting --- provides charts that are obviously different and effective in the correlation of their timing and angular activity with events in our lives. The chart timing issue is so critical that it should drive the discussion of which zodiac to use.

Either zodiac has no bearing on natal charts or on progressed or directed charts as these are all close-in-time to the natal chart (within weeks or a couple of months). Progressed and directed charts only symbolically project into the far future of later years, the charts themselves are only a short time after the natal chart.

On the other hand, cyclic charts such as Returns and derived cyclic charts work so well when precession is accounted for. Why is this adjustment from the Tropical natal positions so effective? I'll be glad to extend this discussion along those lines. But, is it so important to quibble over the arbitrary divisions of local space in terms of their interpretive basis. We have a big clue in front of us --- the difference and timing of chats and our ability to do prediction when using p.c. tropical or sidereal frameworks. Dave_________________If you have options, exercise them all.

Contact Deborah Houlding
| terms and conditions
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated